#AFL Round 4 Weekly Discussion Thread

[Jimitron5000]

What about the anomaly of those dreadful Melbourne lists under Mark Neeld being paid 95% of our list or Hawks list! Some seriously overpaid players there.

I think having to pay a certain minimum % is rubbish for that very reason, clubs should be able to pay fair market rate for a player regardless of what the list totals up to. Having to over pay players to make the minimum %, what a joke, AFLPA at work!

Totally and completely agree. Makes in near impossible to clear the decks and bring in a couple of quality players from other clubs. Carlton and Melbourne spend many seasons recruiting second rate players on first rate salary to make the minimum salary cap percentage.

[bloodspirit]

Thanks, I was missing the point that the Swans still get it too.

[liz]

For completeness I pointed out that COLA was abolished for all clubs but that Giants still had some kind of concession (didn't remember exact details). I was not referring to the trade ban.

But, as Meg pointed out, the Giants don't have any concession other than that the Swans still have - ie a rental allowance for lower paid players.

[bloodspirit]

If you are saying/ thinking that GWS still get COLA, then that is not correct. It was abolished for both Sydney clubs and replaced with the accommodation allowance (subject to maximum salary test) paid directly by the AFL.

A preliminary announcement early in the process of these changes seemed to imply that the Giants would continue to get COLA but that?s not what eventually happened.

However GWS were not subject to the discriminatory trade ban that was inflicted on the Swans during the transitional phase of COLA abolition. You might have been referring to that.

I was pointing out that each list does not get paid exactly the same amount - mostly due to the fact there is no obligation to spend your whole salary cap and partly because you can carry some unspent salary cap over into a subsequent year. For completeness I pointed out that COLA was abolished for all clubs but that Giants still had some kind of concession (didn't remember exact details). I was not referring to the trade ban.

[penga]

I think having to pay a certain minimum % is rubbish for that very reason, clubs should be able to pay fair market rate for a player regardless of what the list totals up to. Having to over pay players to make the minimum %, what a joke, AFLPA at work!

Go check out the scrubs getting paid top dollar in the NBA to meet minimum cap requirements, with theirs being a minimum of USD$84M. We've got it good in comparison.

[Meg]

Even since the abolition of COLA (Giants ongoing concession notwithstanding).........

If you are saying/ thinking that GWS still get COLA, then that is not correct. It was abolished for both Sydney clubs and replaced with the accommodation allowance (subject to maximum salary test) paid directly by the AFL.

A preliminary announcement early in the process of these changes seemed to imply that the Giants would continue to get COLA but that?s not what eventually happened.

However GWS were not subject to the discriminatory trade ban that was inflicted on the Swans during the transitional phase of COLA abolition. You might have been referring to that.

[707]

What about the anomaly of those dreadful Melbourne lists under Mark Neeld being paid 95% of our list or Hawks list! Some seriously overpaid players there.

I think having to pay a certain minimum % is rubbish for that very reason, clubs should be able to pay fair market rate for a player regardless of what the list totals up to. Having to over pay players to make the minimum %, what a joke, AFLPA at work!

[bloodspirit]

It's been mentioned on RWO before but I was reminded by someone's tweet over the weekend that Brisbane, St Kilda and Carlton etc. spend the same amount of money on their lists as we do.

Even since the abolition of COLA (Giants ongoing concession notwithstanding), this isn't necessarily true. Teams only have to spend a minimum percentage of salary cap (90 or 95% from memory) and can carry over the excess to build up a war chest for the following year. This is clearly what teams like North and Saints have done, only they haven't found a player willing to take their dosh yet.

[Swansongster]

It?s only round 4 but it looks like a race to the bottom between the Blues and Lions.

St Kilda could be another team to really drop but I think the Doggies will win their share of games if they can play like tonight the rest of the season.

I?d also expect the Suns to finish bottom 4.

North could be the team that outperforms expectations but they haven?t won against a strong team yet

It's been mentioned on RWO before but I was reminded by someone's tweet over the weekend that Brisbane, St Kilda and Carlton etc. spend the same amount of money on their lists as we do.

There's some seriously overpaid (relative) spuds out there and it also highlights why our fringe guys are always going to be targets of other clubs (and therefore are extremely good trade currency for us).

In regards to talking points from the weekend footy, I think we have a pretty close league this year. For just about all teams (bar the bottom three), percentage is going to be important. Big wins such as Richmond's are almost like double points.

Our draw is tough but I'd like to see us put a few teams to the sword over the next six weeks.

[liz]

On AFL Tonight, last night, some reporter indicated that Smith will re-sign so it must be fact as they don't pluck low profile players to talk about if they haven't had definite news. That's in contrast to the constant speculation with high profile players, like a few days back Tigers tabling a $6mill over 5 years to Tom Lynch of Gold Coast.

That reminds me, I don't normally watch AFL Tonight but I saw the very end yesterday as a lead in to AFL360. There was a mention that Hanners is a guest on tonight's show.

[707]

It's a shame that both Dawson and AJ have had injury setbacks. It seems that Melican's hamstring injury is not too serious, but it would appear that he's unlikely for Friday given our conservative approach with injuries.

It was reported (somewhere) that Nick Smith has extended his contract for another year, but I can't find anything on this in print yet.

On AFL Tonight, last night, some reporter indicated that Smith will re-sign so it must be fact as they don't pluck low profile players to talk about if they haven't had definite news. That's in contrast to the constant speculation with high profile players, like a few days back Tigers tabling a $6mill over 5 years to Tom Lynch of Gold Coast.

[Ludwig]

It's a shame that both Dawson and AJ have had injury setbacks. It seems that Melican's hamstring injury is not too serious, but it would appear that he's unlikely for Friday given our conservative approach with injuries.

It was reported (somewhere) that Nick Smith has extended his contract for another year, but I can't find anything on this in print yet.

[stevoswan]

I liked Luke Beveridge when he stared with the Bulldogs, then started to not like him when he seemed to become a bit of a wanker at press conferences etc but I have to ackowledge him for what he said at the start of his post match press conference re: Gary and Amie Rohan, on behalf of he and his footy club. Delivered with heart and appropriately respectful.

[liz]

So If you are right and the simple answer to some topsy turvy results is that Port, who beat us by 23 points, are NOT very good while Richmond, who beat the Lions by 93 points, ARE very good, what scoreline are you predicting when the Swans play Richmond?

And, of course, Adelaide beat Richmond very convincingly a week or two ago, so we can expect carnage at the SCG this Friday night?!!

[barry]

It will be good for Hodge's media career to experience footy outside Victoria.

Imagine how much better Ling would be if he played a year for the sun's or freo.